Bomb Iran
Rawstory's Larisa Alexandrovna has a big piece up on asset readiness and possible strikes on Iran by June at the earliest. It's mostly circumstantial and seems based on rumor and speculation, but I would say it's worth a quick read.
If I remember right, Scott Ritter in the Q&A after a speech months ago was talking about June being the target date for having the assets ready for a strike. Reading between the lines of this Rawstory piece, that's kind of what I'm seeing here, too.
The question is now down to diplomacy, I guess. Talks have stalled at the UN as China and Russia have thus far refused to allow a "section 7" resolution which would allow the use of force under UN resolution. So, the question is, if there is no UN sanction, would the Bush administration do it anyhow?
AND, I guess it's time to plug the "Date the Iran Bombing Contest" again.
If I remember right, Scott Ritter in the Q&A after a speech months ago was talking about June being the target date for having the assets ready for a strike. Reading between the lines of this Rawstory piece, that's kind of what I'm seeing here, too.
The question is now down to diplomacy, I guess. Talks have stalled at the UN as China and Russia have thus far refused to allow a "section 7" resolution which would allow the use of force under UN resolution. So, the question is, if there is no UN sanction, would the Bush administration do it anyhow?
AND, I guess it's time to plug the "Date the Iran Bombing Contest" again.
posted by mikevotes at
2:08 PM
8 Comments:
I've got to read that story. Which assets are ready? We're using National Guard trucks in Iraq for Marine units...
By
Bravo 2-1, at 2:53 PM
It's all airstrike stuff, so carrier groups, bombers, as well as special ops teams working with anti-iranian gov't forces.
That's why I can't draw too much from her evidence because those assets are in the persian gulf and indian ocean and would be applicable to both Iraq and Afghanistan if not Iran.
This is a speculative article, but it caught my eye as something different when everything else is NSA.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 3:10 PM
Agreed. Though Gardinier is a fine analyst, the Atlantic uses him. We usually keep 1 - 2 carriers in the Gulf area for Iraq and Afghanistan. Moreover, if we are drawing down and relying on air power more -- as has been reported, then shifting more carriers into the region would be expected.
I've read the article. There's not much substance. But people are asking hard questions, which is good. It's important that we don't stumble into a war. Now, we may be with the borders of Iraq. Turkey and Iran are very active there.
By
Bravo 2-1, at 3:27 PM
Again, speculation, but it does catch my interest because it confirms Scott Ritter's earlier comments which I would think are sourced elsewhere.
Sometimes I put up stuff on the border to kind of get a heads up out there. Often, somebody will come in with another article or link that advances or shoots down the point. Or even better, somebody who actually has some expertise will come in and set me straight. Off the top of my head, that's happened a couple of times, on the US Iraq fatalities coming back as freight, one on police tactics, and on a piece I did on soldiers being deployed outside their MOS. Each of those times, I learned a ton.
That's what I was looking for here.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 3:46 PM
I still don't buy it. If Bush goes ahead he is totally isolated internationally. It would have to be an exceptionally clean outcome, and that is not something the US is currently capable of, given the numerous available examples.
There can be no reliance on allies to jump in if it goes haywire. Blair is dead in the water; Australia couldn’t even rustle up 450 extra troops for they promised for Afghanistan deployment. That is unless they are holding back that meager force just in case.
The whole concept of a strike now makes too many presumptions which don’t add up.
My money is on posturing and bully tactics rather than real action.
By
Cartledge, at 3:59 PM
I fully buy that as well. I keep going back and forth on the real vs. negotiating debate on Iran military action. At the same time, they may well be be setting everything up for a "go command," even if it is just for negotiating purposes.
And, gun safety rule number one is never point your gun at anybody even if you think it's not loaded. Accidents happen.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 4:24 PM
With Iran shelling Kurdish positions in Iraq, it seems that a border war could develop. This could lead to an escalation of hostilities resulting in bombing strikes. When? My September date still seems pretty good, depending on what qualifies.
By
Praguetwin, at 5:21 PM
It could be a pretext if they want to go.
And, it's the date of the first US bomb, munition, missile or whatever that explodes in Iran. And I've got a september date myself that I'm reasonably comfortable with.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 10:34 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home